RAMKISHAN,ALIGARH vs. ITO 4(1)(3) ALIGARH, ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

condone the delay and admit this appeal for hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case: The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee is non-filer and initiated proceedings u/s 148 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, where he had reason to believe that income of Rs.89,20,000/- chargeable to tax for the Assessment Year 2018-19 had escaped assessment within

ANKITA PALIWAL,ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19

condoned by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and, it was held by learned CIT(A) that the assessee cannot be granted foreign 3 | P a g e tax credit (FTC) . Thus, the appeal of the assessee stood dismissed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). 5. Still aggrieved, the assessee has filed appeal with the Tribunal, and the ld. Counsel for the assessee

NEETU VERMA,AGRA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

condone the delay of 671 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case:- The assessee had shown income from medical practice and income from other sources and filed her return of income declaring total income at Rs.22,71,810/- on 17.10.2016. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had claimed interest on loan of Rs.18

SATISH NARAYAN SHUKLA,PHAPHUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AURAIYA

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

disallowance of assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 54 and 54F amounting to Rs.12,22,705/- made by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.03.2022, the Assessing Officer levied penalty amounting to Rs.2,51,878/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 22.09.2022. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals), wherein

ZILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

condone the delay. 3. The facts and issues involved in both these appeals are almost similar, hence for the sake of brevity and convenience, both these appeals are being decided by this common order. The facts of ITA No. 347/Agr/2025 are only being narrated as under: 4. The brief facts underappeal are that the assessee’s bank is carrying

ZILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

condone the delay. 3. The facts and issues involved in both these appeals are almost similar, hence for the sake of brevity and convenience, both these appeals are being decided by this common order. The facts of ITA No. 347/Agr/2025 are only being narrated as under: 4. The brief facts underappeal are that the assessee’s bank is carrying

RASHMITA SINGH,GWALIOR vs. ITO, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2009-10] Rashmita Singh, Income Tax Officer, D-47, Phase-3, Garden Homes, Ward-2(3), Alkapuri, Gwalior, Vs Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh-474001 Madhya Pradesh-474001 Pan-Agfps9495J Appellant Respondent

condone the delay of 92 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case:- The Assessing Officer had AIR information that the assessee had deposited a sum of Rs.12,81,701/- in her saving bank account during the Financial Year 2008-09 relating to Assessment Year 2009-10 maintained with ICICI Bank Gwalior in account No.xxxxxxxx4641

SH RANJEET KUMAR SHARMA ,GWALIOR vs. ITO 2(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with the observations made herein above

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalito, 2(1), Shri Ranjeet Kumar Gawalior. Sharma, Vs. Meera Colony, Bihind-477447 Madhya Pradesh. Pan-Bwdps0542K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv. & Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv. Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

condone the delay caused in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and therefore, admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and e-filed of his return of income on 15.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.3,04,818/-. The case of the assessee was selected under CASS

SATYAPRAKASH,AGRA vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, appeal preferred by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15

delay caused in filing the appeal does not appear intentional or deliberate, hence, condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee has not filed its return of income for the assessment year 2014-15. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee is a farmer and his sole earning is from agriculture produce or from sale/purchase of rural agriculture land

SMT. SARLA DEVI,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The following grounds have been raised: “1. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly and illegally confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(l)(c) of the I. T. Act. 2. Because the assessee duly discharged her onus of proving the cash credits to be genuine. The addition

NEETA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(2), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Neeta Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-23, New Agra, Agra Ward-2(1)(2), Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxpa0936E Assessee By : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv Shri Nitin Goyal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

condone the delay in the interest of substantial justice and admit the appeal of the Assessee for adjudication. 3. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal before us:- Neeta Agarwal “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming

BUNDELKHAND GRAMOTTHAN EVAM SHAIKCHHIK VIKAS SAMITI,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD EXEMPTION, AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2021-22

Delay was condoned by CIT(E), Lucknow]. Assessment was completed u/s. 143(1) of the Act by disallowing the amount

GRAMEEN EVAM SHAHRI WELFARE SANSTHAN,ALIGARH vs. ITO, WARD, 4(1)(3), ALIGARH

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

disallowance of exemption u/s 11 of the Act due to delay in filing of ITR and non-filing of 10B. 5) That CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 31.07 2024 in limine without appreciate the fact on merit that there is no mistake on the part of assessee in filing ITR and 10B as both was filed

GRAMEEN EVAM SHAHRI WALFARE SANSTHAN ,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 4(1)(3), ALIGARH

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

disallowance of exemption u/s 11 of the Act due to delay in filing of ITR and non-filing of 10B. 5) That CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 31.07 2024 in limine without appreciate the fact on merit that there is no mistake on the part of assessee in filing ITR and 10B as both was filed

GRAMEEN EVAM SHAHRI WELFARE SANSTHAN,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD,4(1)(3) ALIGARH, ALIGARH

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

disallowance of exemption u/s 11 of the Act due to delay in filing of ITR and non-filing of 10B. 5) That CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 31.07 2024 in limine without appreciate the fact on merit that there is no mistake on the part of assessee in filing ITR and 10B as both was filed

VARDAN CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

condone this delay and admit this appeal for hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case: In this case, the original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27.03.2015 at the assessed income of Rs.16,81,270/- after making an addition of Rs.2 lakhs. Thereafter, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act after obtaining the approval

AKHLESH KUMAR TIWARI,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AGRA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

disallowed by Assessing Officer and added to the declared income of assessee on the ground that the assessee did not file any purchase deed in support of his claim of purchasing new house property worth Rs.25,85,000/-. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte

JOURA CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MORENA, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ITO, MORENA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19 Joura Co-Operative Marketing Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Society Limited Ward-1, Morena The Joura Dist Morena Dist. Morena Pan :Aabaj1828K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S. N. Agarwal, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 Order

condonation of delay before us. In this situation, the Bench adopts the lenient view for such 15 days delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and admits the same for adjudication as the Department has not raised any objection. 3. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee is a Co-operative Marketing Society registered under Madhya Co-operative